Welcome to Libertas Chambers Leading specialists in Business Crime, Professional Discipline & Asset Recovery

Libertas is a dynamic and progressive chambers, offering a range of specialisms across a national presence.

"Roxanne Morrell is entirely unafraid to fight for the rights of those who cannot fight themselves."
Chambers & Partners 2026 - Roxanne Morrell

Libertas Chambers

A Forward-thinking set of chambers with a national presence

Libertas Chambers boasts an impressive array of experienced barristers in several practice areas.  We took advantage of recent challenges to rethink the model of a chambers based on criminal and regulatory law and set up on a virtual basis.

This enabled us to create a national service for solicitors and clients by having high quality conference suites in major cities. In London we retain premises in the heart of the City.

Our members provide a high-quality service with access to modern facilities throughout the country.

Read more about us

Areas of Practice & Expertise

Our carefully selected and highly skilled collection of experts provide a national and international service to all Libertas clients. Providing you with a first-class advocacy and advisory service across the following areas (and many more).

If you would like to discuss an alternative area of law please contact our clerking team who will provide you with immediate advice and support.

Business Crime

Our barristers have established national and international reputations for their expertise, experience and confidence in Fraud, Financial Services and Business Crime and Compliance – they are consistently ranked as leaders in the field. We advise and represent individuals and entities in relation to financial, regulatory, and fraud investigations in the UK, and overseas. Our clients include financial institutions and corporations, as well as: politicians entrepreneurs company directors and chief executives chartered accountants lawyers IFAs and medical and other professionals We therefore have accumulated experience dealing with the Financial Conduct Authority, Serious Fraud Office, National Crime Agency, HMRC, National Trading Standards, FACT, as well as other investigating and prosecuting bodies. International Business Crime Many of our cases have an international dimension and we are accordingly experienced dealing with overseas authorities including the US Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission and EU, Indian and Australian authorities. Practitioners specialise in trans-jurisdictional terrorist financing, proscribed wildlife trading, and export control violations. Members of our team have previously worked in the banking and commercial sectors and within their regulatory regimes. Others have had advisory and disciplinary roles regulating the accounting (FRC, ACCA, CIMA) and medical (GMC) sectors.  Some of us prosecute for these agencies as well as defending, and advise on and conduct internal investigations, or act as disclosure counsel. We understand how regulators and prosecution authorities work. Practitioners lecture and advise on corporate responsibility for human rights. We are often involved in an advisory role at the start of regulatory or criminal investigations. Our experience, attention to detail and dedication to our clients assists them in responding appropriately with the object of avoiding prosecution. When proceedings are commenced, we work to ensure that our clients receive the best advice and representation and, most importantly, a fair hearing. Business Crime Conduct Our work covers a wide range of conduct, recently including: Bribery and corruption, including European government officials Cartel Offending Commercial property fraud Corporate compliance with human rights obligations Environmental protection, including carbon credit and land fraud, wildlife trading and international illegal logging EU, National and Devolved Government grant scheme frauds Export Control violations Fraud and cheating in the sports sector (cricket, rugby, horse-racing) Fraudulent trading Insider trading, market manipulation and abuse Insolvency and bankruptcy offending Intellectual property theft Investment (boiler-room) fraud and Ponzi mis-selling Money laundering, restraint orders, confiscation and asset forfeiture Pension mis-selling and liberation frauds Professional discipline Tax Evasion SPV’s inc. film and insurance schemes MTIC & carousel fraud PAYE, payroll and C.I.S. frauds Duty diversions Terrorist financing Trading Standards prosecutions in clothing, energy switching and ticketing sectors Web-site ghosting and internet advance-fee frauds Whistle-blowing and deferred prosecution agreements We advise and represent well-known corporate clients and individuals in sensitive situations with discretion as well as vigour. Please call our Clerking team on 020 7036 0200 to discuss any particular requirements you may have.

Criminal Defence

Libertas Chambers brings together some of the country’s leading criminal defence specialists, working in London, nationally, and internationally. Our team of accomplished barristers, including renowned King’s Counsel and exceptional juniors, is dedicated to providing unparalleled representation at every level of the criminal justice system. From the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court or the Magistrates’ Courts to the Crown Court, Libertas Chambers is committed to delivering quality and strategic legal advice. Why Choose Libertas Chambers’ Criminal Defence Barristers? Choosing Libertas Chambers means benefiting from our team of leading criminal defence specialists, with a proven track record in handling high-profile cases. Our commitment to excellence is evident in our involvement in landmark cases such as R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, and R v Lewis [2017] EWCA Crim 1734. Our barristers bring their wealth of experience to the table, providing expert legal advice and a steadfast dedication to you and your proceedings. Libertas Chambers accepts instructions in both publicly and privately funded work. Our barristers provide specialist and strategic advice at all stages of a criminal case, from pre-charge investigation through to trial and appeal. Our team delivers quality representation at every stage of criminal proceedings. Choosing Libertas Chambers means entrusting your case to skilful legal professionals who set the standard for excellence in criminal defence practice, ensuring that your rights and interests are safeguarded with the utmost determination and diligence Our Criminal Defence Barristers’ Expertise Libertas Chambers takes pride in the diverse experience and expertise of its barristers, who are regularly instructed in key areas of criminal defence practice. Our areas of specialisation include, but are not limited to: Appellate Homicide Corporate manslaughter Terrorism Drug trafficking Serious and organised crime, including corruption and bribery International crime Human trafficking Modern Slavery Fraud Cyber crime Robbery Serious assaults Kidnaping Serious sexual offences Environmental health offences Trading standards prosecutions RSPCA prosecutions Our criminal defence barristers also provide select expert advice to external authorities. They are actively involved in delivering training and lectures on current legal topics to fellow members of the legal profession, experts, and individuals within the broader criminal justice system (and beyond). Contact Libertas Chambers’ Criminal Defence Barristers Libertas Chambers’ experienced criminal defence barristers are here to help if you require expert legal representation in any criminal matter. Our team of leading specialists is committed to providing strategic and high-quality advocacy at every stage of the criminal justice process. Contact us today to discuss your case with a skilled criminal defence barrister. You can call 020 7036 0200 or complete the form on our contact page. Criminal Defence Barrister FAQs Why do I need a criminal defence barrister? Engaging a Libertas Chambers criminal barrister ensures that you have a dedicated legal professional with extensive expertise in criminal defence. Our barristers navigate the complexities of the legal system, providing strategic counsel and robust representation at all stages of your case. What are the main differences between a criminal barrister and a solicitor? While solicitors predominantly handle legal matters outside the courtroom, criminal barristers specialise in advocacy in the court room – working together they prepare and present a case to the court. At Libertas Chambers, our barristers bring a wealth of experience in the intricacies of criminal law, offering specialised expertise and advocacy skills crucial for a robust defence. What is the process of instructing a criminal defence barrister? Instructing a criminal barrister at Libertas Chambers is designed to be accessible, efficient, and tailored to your legal needs. You can instruct any of our criminal defence barristers through your existing solicitor. You can also directly engage some of our experienced barristers through the Public Access Scheme. This scheme allows individuals and organisations to instruct a barrister directly without the need for a solicitor. To initiate the process, you can begin by contacting our experienced clerks, who are adept at guiding clients through the seamless procedure of instructing a Libertas barrister. Our clerks will discuss the details of your case, ensuring that it aligns with the expertise of the most suitable barrister within our chambers. This direct engagement allows for clear communication and a personalised approach to address your legal concerns. Upon confirmation of instruction, your chosen barrister will carefully review the details of your case, providing expert legal advice, strategic planning, and robust representation. Libertas Chambers is committed to delivering exceptional service at every stage of the criminal justice process. The process of instructing a barrister through the Public Access Scheme exemplifies our dedication to accessibility, expertise, and client-focused representation.  

Regulatory Law

Our members have substantial experience defending individuals and companies in regulatory law matters before professional tribunals or the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) and above. What distinguishes us from other regulatory barristers specialising in regulatory work is that clients will benefit from our skills and experience as criminal advocates. WHAT IS REGULATORY LAW? Many professions are regulated by professional standards boards and codes of conduct. These codes of conduct can be subject to frequent change and are becoming more demanding and sophisticated and, in some cases, opaque. If a regulatory agency believes that offences have taken place, they have broad powers of investigation. They can conduct inspections, seize documents, compel suspects to answer questions, conduct interviews under caution, serve statutory notices, and take enforcement action, including prosecution. If you need help, our regulatory law barristers can provide legal support and representation. REGULATORY LAW OUR BARRISTERS SPECIALISE IN Our members specialise in many areas of regulatory law, including: Professional Discipline Regulatory Prosecutions We can assist with regulatory bodies, including: – The Financial Services Authority – The Health and Safety Executive – Food Standards Agency – The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills – Environment Agency – HM Revenue & Customs WHY CHOOSE OUR REGULATORY BARRISTERS? Contentious regulatory law work often requires a robust defence, strategic advice and preparation, and skilful cross-examination of witnesses. The lack of hard-fought trial experience in some regulatory practitioners means that the witnesses may not be put under the degree of sustained pressure in cross-examination that the client is entitled to and expects. We believe that any individual or corporate entity facing a serious regulatory law accusation is entitled to the same robust defence as a defendant in a criminal case. The consequence of a false regulatory accusation can be just as damaging and life-changing as a false accusation of a criminal offence. Professionals can be vulnerable to malicious complaints. The only way to tackle these successfully is to use the skills honed in the criminal courts to uncover false accusations. We understand that these cases often cross over between criminal, civil, regulatory and disciplinary proceedings. We are also very aware of both the commercial and emotional impact these cases can have on clients and have a lot of experience supporting our clients through the challenges. We are also well-versed in working with insurers, unions and defence organisations. The regulatory law team includes trained mediators and members with experience working within the City and in-house with regulators. Contact Our Regulatory Law Barristers If you would like to speak with a member of our team, there are plenty of ways to contact Libertas Chambers. Our clerks will be only too happy to recommend the most appropriate barrister or combination of barristers for each individual case.

Civil Litigation

There can often be a very thin line between conduct which is criminal in nature or which amounts to commercial fraud only. The correct advice and selecting the right remedy can make all the difference. Some cases are best left to be prosecuted in criminal courts, where the offender faces the prospect of penal consequences. In other cases, seeking remedies in a commercial or a civil court may be more expedient for you to recoup your losses. And then, there are cases where you may want to explore both possibilities simultaneously. Types of Civil Litigation Civil litigation can encompass a broad range of disputes that will directly enact a number of legal matters. A civil litigator will therefore tend to specialise in a specific practice area. Some of the most common types of civil litigation include: disputes and laws that encompass landlords and tenants environmental law products liability intellectual-property disputes construction medical malpractice employment and labour issues anti-trust laws real estate worker’s compensation, and education law Our Civil Litigation Barristers At Libertas, we pride ourselves on having barristers who have vast experience in multiple domains. We can advise you on selecting the correct remedy for your situation. We assist you with advice that lets you form an informed view. Our members routinely provide pre-litigation advice that helps you form a comprehensive legal overview of your situation and the possibilities. Contact Libertas Chambers today to discuss representation for any civil litigation matter.

Public Law & Human Rights

Libertas Chambers is nationally recognised for defending individual rights and challenging unlawful decisions made by public authorities. Our highly experienced public law and human rights barristers regularly appear in the Administrative Court and Upper Tribunal and international forums. We help our clients pursue public law challenges against all public authorities, including government departments, courts and tribunals, coroners, the police, housing authorities, schools and prisons. Judicial Review Judicial Review proceedings enable challenges to decisions made by Courts and Tribunals, by regulators and by bodies whose public functions impact individuals and companies. This jurisdiction is an essential protection of the individual’s rights against administrative irrationality or excess. We have specialist experience seeking Judicial Review in cases flowing from our other practice areas, challenging decisions in criminal and quasi-criminal investigations. Members have acted for claimants seeking to challenge decisions made by the police, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the Information Commissioner, the Asset Recovery Agency, the Legal Services Commission, the Magistracy, Judges and various Tribunals. These cases have included: challenges to the lawfulness of pre-charge search warrants decisions to prosecute children actions by solicitors resisting Special Procedure search warrants challenges to the legality of the application of the sending procedure by Magistrates Courts preserving the anonymity of young offenders in extreme cases the applicability of the reasonable time requirements in Article 6 to enforcement of Confiscation Proceedings decisions on appellate referral by the CCRC treatment of prisoners and the review of Parole Board decisions. Criminal Trials Within the criminal trial process, our members have expertise at first instance on: domestic appeal and applications in the European Court of Human Rights and the OHCHR challenging a range of human rights violations, as well as the compatibility of primary and secondary legislation with the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms (ECHR) such as the hearsay provisions in CJA 2003, the reverse burden in s.90 Financial Services Act 2012 the Attorney-General’s exercise of the right of nolle prosequi We act nationally and internationally for people whose human rights are in issue in other forums, including actions against the police, extradition, international law, prisoners’ rights, and at Coronial Inquests. Why Choose Our Human Rights Barristers? As a leading human rights barrister chambers, Libertas Chambers offers unparalleled expertise in public law challenges, international human rights law, and complex judicial reviews.” Libertas Chambers’ members have advised and acted on behalf of individuals, governmental organisations and major NGOs in providing international human rights expertise. Our members provide advice and representation in cases concerning Prison Law, including issues relating to prisoners’ welfare, Parole Board hearings, and the release and recall of prisoners. Coronial Inquests engage the rights of many groups; members have experience representing interested parties, insurers and the families of the deceased. We offer particular expertise where there is a potential engagement of criminal or regulatory proceedings, acting for insurers and their policyholders. If you’re seeking expert advice from experienced public law and human rights barristers, contact Libertas Chambers today to discuss your case. Frequently Asked Questions About Public Law and Human Rights Barristers What is a public law barrister? A public law barrister specialises in cases involving the rights and responsibilities of public authorities, government bodies, and individuals. They help challenge unlawful decisions or actions taken by public entities, often through judicial review proceedings. What does a human rights barrister do? Human rights barristers advocate for individuals or groups whose fundamental rights have been violated. They handle cases involving unlawful detention, discrimination, freedom of expression, or breaches of international human rights conventions like the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). How can Libertas Chambers help with judicial review? Our public law barristers are experienced in judicial review proceedings, helping clients challenge decisions made by public authorities, tribunals, and regulators. We provide expert advice, prepare detailed applications, and represent clients in court to protect their rights and ensure accountability. What types of human rights cases do you handle? Our human rights barristers handle a wide range of cases, including: Violations of prisoners’ rights. Extradition matters. Actions against the police for misconduct. Challenges to legislation or government actions that breach human rights laws. Can you help with international human rights cases? Yes, members of Libertas Chambers are experienced in representing clients in international human rights matters, including applications to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Do you assist with coronial inquests involving human rights issues? Yes, our barristers regularly represent clients in coronial inquests, particularly where human rights issues arise. We act for families, insurers, and other interested parties to ensure fair representation and resolution. Why choose Libertas Chambers for public law and human rights cases? Libertas is a leading public law and human rights barrister chambers. Our members have extensive experience handling complex cases, from judicial reviews to international law disputes. We offer tailored advice, robust representation, and a proven track record of success in defending individual rights. How do I instruct a barrister at Libertas Chambers? You can contact us directly to discuss your case or seek advice on instructing a barrister. If a solicitor represents you, they can also engage one of our members on your behalf.  

Private Prosecutions

The prosecution of alleged criminals for wrongdoing is generally the domain of the Crown and its specialist agencies. But increasing budgetary constraints on investigating and prosecution agencies mean that many miscreants can avoid being held to account in the Criminal Courts for their actions. Why Private Prosecutions? When State prosecutors decide they cannot or will not prosecute, the law allows private individuals to prosecute allegations of wrongdoing. Initiating a private prosecution puts you in court as the prosecutor, adopting the mantle of the prosecution agency. Who Can Bring A Private Prosecution? A private prosecution can be brought by any individual or company – it is not solely an option for the police, CPS or government agency. In the past, private prosecutions were more common among charitable or public interest bodies. But more recently, section 6(1) has been increasingly used by individuals and commercial entities as an alternative to or alongside civil litigation. Which offences can be privately prosecuted? Subject to certain exceptions, private prosecutions can be brought for a wide range of offences where the CPS have not initiated criminal proceedings, including: Fraud Property disputes Assault Sexual offences Harassment Perverting the course of justice Blackmail Manslaughter/murder Private Prosecution Barristers Private prosecutions are a specialist area of the law. The right to prosecute, and seek punishment of offenders, brings with it the responsibility of ensuring a fair trial and the obligation to conform to all the rules applicable to any prosecuting agency. Those rules are often complex and diffuse. At Libertas Chambers, our barristers are experienced in liaising with potential prosecuting authorities and advising how to assemble the best case for the prosecution, taking the case to court and seeking justice, even where the Crown Prosecution Service or other prosecution agencies cannot or will not act. Importantly, this includes continuing advice on the recovery of compensation and some or all of litigation costs from defendants or Central Funds. We start by helping you assess your evidence, advising you on the right forum in which to litigate and on the merits of your case, then working with the best private prosecution solicitors to put together and finally present your case at trial, ensuring continuity of representation and consistency of approach. Members of chambers can offer advice about the particular issues that arise in private prosecutions, including: the prospects of success, applying for and resisting the issue of a summons, applications to the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over and stop a prosecution, presenting and resisting abuse of process arguments recovery of costs. If you would like to find out more information about private prosecutions, please contact our clerks to arrange an initial consultation to discuss the merits of your case.

International Criminal Law

At Libertas Chambers, our barristers are distinguished experts in international criminal law, specialising in a range of serious international offences, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Our team provides robust representation in international courts and tribunals, offering both advisory and litigious solutions. If you require legal expertise that navigates complex international jurisdictions with precision, contact us today to see how we can assist in your case. Our Expertise in International Criminal Law At Libertas Chambers, we provide specialised legal representation in international criminal law, boasting a team of barristers experienced in high-stakes international cases. Our expertise encompasses a wide range of severe international crimes, such as: Genocide Torture Crimes against humanity War crimes (including cases tried in military tribunals) We are equipped to handle complex legal challenges across various international forums, ensuring meticulous advice, effective advocacy, and dedicated support tailored to each case’s unique demands. Whether navigating international criminal courts or engaging in detailed advisory roles, our barristers are committed to delivering justice and upholding the rule of law globally. Why Choose Our International Criminal Law Barristers? Our barristers at Libertas Chambers bring extensive experience in international criminal law, having represented clients before International Criminal Courts and Tribunals. Their expertise includes complex appeals involving genocide, crimes against humanity, and joint criminal enterprise. Our members’ expertise extends to navigating universal and extraterritorial jurisdiction, transnational human trafficking, statelessness, and citizenship issues. They are adept at advising on complementarity issues in international criminal law investigations, the intersection of domestic criminal law with international crimes, and related matters involving International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights, and Terrorism as an international crime. Areas of Specialisation International Terrorism Law: Our members have a distinguished record in handling international terrorism cases, representing clients in both domestic and international courts, including trial and appellate levels. Extradition and Financial Crime: We are also recognised for our expertise in extradition law, especially in cases involving multinational financial crimes. Additional International Engagements: Our barristers have contributed their expertise across the Commonwealth and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, dealing with death penalty cases abroad. We proudly list members who serve at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kosovo Specialist Chambers (KSC) in The Hague, as well as those who have appeared in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC).

Health and Safety Law

At Libertas Chambers, our Health and Safety barristers provide specialist representation in all aspects of Health and Safety law. We defend both corporate and individual clients facing investigation or prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), local authorities, and other regulatory bodies. We appear regularly in the Magistrates’ Court, Crown Court, Coroner’s Court, and before specialist tribunals. With backgrounds as seasoned criminal advocates, we bring courtroom rigour and strategic clarity to complex regulatory cases. We are trusted to handle the most serious, high-stakes situations where reputations, livelihoods, and even liberty are on the line. Understanding Health and Safety Law and HSE Enforcement Health and Safety law sets out the duties of employers, managers, and organisations to protect employees, contractors, and members of the public. Breaches can result in: Multi-million pound fines for corporate defendants Director disqualification Custodial sentences for individuals Investigations are usually led by the HSE or local authorities. Their powers include site inspections, issuing prohibition or improvement notices, seizing documents, and bringing criminal prosecutions. When to Instruct a Health and Safety Barrister Our barristers provide advice and defence in a wide range of cases, including: HSE prosecution defence under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter investigations Defending directors facing personal prosecution or disqualification Appeals against prohibition and improvement notices Workplace fatalities and serious injury cases Strategic advice during HSE interviews under caution Representation at inquests and public inquiries Liaising with insurers, crisis management teams, and company directors We represent individuals, directors, and organisations across all industries. Current Trends in Health and Safety Prosecutions In recent years, the courts have imposed consistently tougher penalties in HSE cases. Fines for large organisations often run into millions of pounds. Directors are increasingly exposed to personal liability, including disqualification and imprisonment. Sentencing Guidelines for Health and Safety offences (introduced in 2016) have led to higher penalties, with courts assessing culpability, risk of harm, and the turnover of the business. Our barristers stay at the forefront of these developments, ensuring our clients receive up-to-date, strategic advice. Why Choose Libertas Chambers Health and Safety cases demand speed, strategy, and robust advocacy. Investigations often move quickly and attract significant media attention. Unlike some regulatory specialists, our barristers are experienced criminal advocates, skilled in cross-examination and challenging the prosecution’s evidence. We combine courtroom confidence with commercial awareness, ensuring the best possible defence. Our members also bring expertise in related areas such as environmental enforcement, civil litigation, employment law, and public inquiries. This multi-disciplinary approach ensures no issue is overlooked. Representation at Inquests and Public Inquiries We act for companies, directors, families, and public bodies at inquests following workplace fatalities. Our barristers handle these sensitive proceedings with discretion, professionalism, and a focus on protecting reputational and legal interests. We also represent clients at public inquiries, guiding them through complex procedures with clarity and authority. CONTACT OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY BARRISTERS If you are facing an HSE investigation, prosecution, or inquest following a workplace incident, we can help. Our clerks are available to recommend the most suitable barrister or team for your case. Health and Safety Law FAQs What penalties can result from a breach of Health and Safety law? Fines can reach millions of pounds. Directors may face disqualification or, in the most serious cases, imprisonment. When should I instruct a Health and Safety barrister? As soon as you receive an enforcement notice, an invitation to an HSE interview under caution, or become aware of an investigation. Early advice is critical. Do you defend directors personally? Yes. We defend directors and managers facing personal liability, prosecution, disqualification orders, and even custodial risk. What are the latest sentencing trends in HSE cases? Since the Sentencing Guidelines were introduced, penalties have increased dramatically. Courts are handing down consistently higher fines and tougher sentences for both organisations and individuals. Can a director go to prison for health and safety breaches? Yes. Directors can face custodial sentences if found personally responsible for serious breaches, particularly in cases of corporate manslaughter or gross negligence. How do the Health and Safety Sentencing Guidelines affect my case? The Guidelines require courts to consider culpability, risk of harm, and the organisation’s turnover. This often results in higher fines and more severe penalties than before 2016. Do you provide national coverage? Yes. Libertas Chambers barristers represent clients in courts, tribunals, inquests, and inquiries across England and Wales.  

CONNECT WITH US FOR THE LATEST NEWS & UPDATES
Latest News
Felicity Gerry KC Granted Leave to Appeal on Rap Music and Gang Evidence Dr Felicity Gerry KC granted leave to appeal on use of rap music and “gang affiliation” evidence on behalf of young man convicted of “joint enterprise” murder. Dr Felicity Gerry KC has been granted leave to appeal in a case raising important concerns about the prejudicial use of police evidence said to suggest gang affiliation, and the admission of a rap video at trial. The appeal concerns a young man convicted of murder under what is known as “joint enterprise”, where the appellant argues that the evidence risked unfairly shaping the jury’s view of his character and association. The case is likely to add to the growing debate over how courts treat rap music and alleged gang evidence in criminal trials, particularly where questions of race, stereotyping, and fairness arise. It will be heard alongside 3 connected cases referred by the CCRC and a 4th unrelated case where the same issues arise. At a directions hearing on 18 June 2026 the Court of Appeal granted leave on 3 grounds and referred a 4th ground to the full court. There will be a further directions hearing later in 2026. You can read more here (her client is Durrell Ford).
Libertas Chambers
Tanveer Qureshi and Sarah Day Secure Acquittal in Health and Safety Trial Libertas Chambers is delighted to report that Tanveer Qureshi, leading Sarah Day, and instructed by Ghulam Sohail of MPR Solicitors, successfully secured the acquittal of their client following a lengthy and complex health and safety prosecution at the Central Criminal Court. The case arose from a tragic fatal incident on a construction site in Banstead, Surrey, where a worker died after a trench collapsed during excavation works. The prosecution followed an extensive investigation into the circumstances of the incident, the allocation of responsibility on site, and the duties owed by corporate entities and individuals under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Following a trial lasting more than three months, Tanveer and Sarah’s client was acquitted of failing to discharge a health and safety duty. Reporting restrictions having now been lifted, it is possible to comment on the outcome and the issues raised by the case. The case was legally and factually complex. It involved detailed consideration of the scope of duties under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the circumstances in which an individual director or officer may face personal criminal liability under section 37, where an alleged corporate breach is said to have been committed with that person’s consent, connivance or neglect. A central issue in the defence case concerned the distinction between title and actual responsibility. The prosecution case relied, in part, on the suggestion that the defendant, through his company, had responsibility for aspects of site management and supervision. The defence position required careful analysis of what his company’s undertaking actually was, whether it extended to excavation planning, management or supervision, and whether there was sufficient evidence that the defendant had practical control or authority over the relevant excavation works. The case therefore required the jury to consider far more than the tragic outcome itself. It required a close examination of contractual arrangements, working practices, the allocation of duties between the principal contractor and subcontractors, the role of site managers and assistant site managers, and whether responsibility for a high-risk activity such as deep excavation could properly be attributed to a particular individual or company. In health and safety prosecutions, there is often a danger that labels such as “director”, “manager”, “site manager” or “assistant site manager” are treated as shorthand for legal responsibility. This case demonstrated why that approach can be unsafe. Criminal liability requires detailed analysis of the evidence: what role was actually performed, what authority existed in practice, what knowledge the individual had, what systems were in place, and whether the alleged breach truly fell within that person’s sphere of responsibility. The defence also involved careful consideration of expert and factual evidence. The issues required a detailed understanding of construction-site practice, excavation risk, the role of method statements and risk assessments, and the documentary systems by which health and safety responsibility is usually allocated, communicated and monitored. The defendant’s acquittal underlines the importance of specialist representation in serious regulatory and health and safety prosecutions. Cases of this kind sit at the intersection of criminal law, regulatory enforcement, corporate responsibility and technical evidence. They require advocates who are able to analyse complex documentation, challenge assumptions about responsibility, and present the issues clearly to a jury. Members of Libertas Chambers are regularly instructed in serious and complex criminal and regulatory matters, including health and safety prosecutions, corporate crime, fraud, financial crime, professional discipline and cases involving director or officer liability. The case reflects Chambers’ ability to provide robust, forensic and commercially aware representation in proceedings where the consequences for individuals and businesses are profound. For companies, directors, managers and professionals operating in regulated sectors, the case carries an important message. Health and safety investigations can move quickly from the facts of an incident to questions of criminal liability, corporate structure, delegation, supervision and control. Early specialist advice is essential, particularly where there is any prospect of individual liability being alleged against directors, managers or those said to have assumed responsibility for safety-critical work. Media Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0m2g84zevko  
Libertas Chambers
Not Guilty Verdicts Secured in Southwark Murder Trial Felicity Gerry KC and Roxanne Morell (instructed by Saima Akhtar of Hannah Solicitors) secured not guilty verdicts on charges of both murder and manslaughter yesterday following a jury trial at Southwark Crown Court in which the Crown Prosecution Service had refused a request to discontinue their case against a young woman who it was agreed at trial had suffered violence and abuse herself for over a decade. After hearing all the evidence, the jury acquitted their client of both murder and manslaughter. The prosecution alleged that their client was party to an agreed plan to attack, the scope of which included a stabbing, and they sought to establish that their client intentionally participated in, encouraged or assisted the actions of her co-defendant. The co-defendant agreed there was no plan and raised reasonable self-defence. The deceased had emerged with a very large knife. Felicity and Roxanne consistently maintained that the evidence did not support the allegations of planning against their client and that the prosecution’s case depended upon speculative interpretations of footage and conduct rather than proof of the mental and conduct elements required in law. A central feature of the defence case was agreed and unchallenged expert evidence establishing that their client was a highly vulnerable young woman. That evidence, not disputed by the prosecution, was directly relevant to the proper interpretation of her conduct and state of mind before, during and after the incident. The defence argued that the prosecution’s analysis invited the jury to draw conclusions from their client’s reactions at the scene which were incompatible with the expert evidence. Conduct said by the prosecution to demonstrate knowledge, participation or shared purpose was, the defence submitted, equally consistent with the behaviour of a vulnerable individual responding to a rapidly unfolding and traumatic event. In the closing address for the defence, Felicity summarised the central defence argument: “This is a case where hindsight and interpretation of footage by the prosecution distorts reality. A life has been lost, and it is natural to search for accountability. But the law demands discipline. You must acquit when the interpretation of evidence is so unreasonable that you can conclude there is no evidence at all.” Felicity and Roxanne also challenged the prosecution’s approach to secondary liability. The case raised important questions concerning the distinction between objective inferences drawn from circumstances and proof of a defendant’s subjective knowledge, intention, or encouragement. Felicity and Roxanne submitted that the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence elided that distinction. Rather than proving what their client actually knew, intended or encouraged, the prosecution invited the jury to infer criminal responsibility from presence, association, reaction and hindsight analysis of events captured on footage. The judicial route to verdict was structured to enable the jury to conclude there was no evidence of planning while considering whether this was a spontaneous event between two men on a doorstep with a background of a financial dispute over a rental scheme and thus issues of reasonable self-defence for the co-defendant who was convicted of murder. The agreed expert evidence of vulnerability for the female defendant was particularly important in this regard because the prosecution suggested that her lack of reaction and participation at the scene was evidence of knowledge. The defence argued that the expert evidence substantially undermined the suggestion that her behaviour demonstrated any shared intent or common purpose. Vulnerability, trauma, passivity and evidence of “freezing” when faced with violence were all matters the jury was required to consider when assessing whether the prosecution had proved the elements necessary for liability for murder or manslaughter. Despite those issues being raised throughout the proceedings, the CPS maintained its case and declined a written request to discontinue the prosecution. The jury’s verdicts confirm that the prosecution failed to satisfy the criminal standard of proof. While the reasons for the verdict remain known only to the jury, the outcome serves as an important reminder of the principles reaffirmed in Jogee: criminal liability cannot be established through association, assumption, or hindsight. The law requires proof of agreed planning, intentional encouragement or assistance and proof of the defendant’s own state of mind which Felicity and Roxanne maintained was absent here. This case further highlights the need for particular care when interpreting the conduct of vulnerable defendants. Behaviour that may appear significant when viewed retrospectively may look very different when assessed against the realities of vulnerability, trauma and the pressures of unfolding events. You can read a news item on the case here but Felicity notes ‘Please do not be distracted by any suggestion this was a targeted attack’
Libertas Chambers
Latest Insights
Dr Felicity Gerry KC Writes for Counsel Magazine on Autism Dr Felicity Gerry KC, a leading expert in criminal law, explores the complex intersection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the UK criminal justice system in her latest piece for Counsel Magazine. Drawing on her extensive experience, Dr Felicity Gerry KC examines how systemic gaps in understanding and support can have profound consequences for neurodiverse individuals, particularly in cases involving joint enterprise convictions. Her article sheds light on the urgent need for reforms and greater awareness to ensure justice is equitable for all. Article Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC It is not known how many people are in prison for murder when they did not kill anyone but were convicted as secondary parties via the discredited label ‘joint enterprise’. It is not known how many of these people were convicted under the law on ‘joint enterprise’ that in 2016 was held to be erroneous by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is not known how many of these people in prison live with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There is currently no national UK audit of prisons to establish this information. It is known that ASD is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disability which affects how people interpret the world and understand it. It affects more than one in 100 people. Despite its prevalence, it remains poorly understood, stigmatised and stereotyped. Research states: ‘if social conventions and connectedness are opaque to [people with ASD], how can they authentically appreciate that a person’s actions are morally wrong?’ The Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge found that an overwhelming majority of ASD accused persons were not provided with adequate support or adjustments in the UK criminal justice system (CJS). This followed an Equality and Human Rights Commission report in June 2020 that warned that the CJS is failing those with learning disabilities and autistic people. The Cambridge report noted that there was almost no research investigating how autistic defendants are being treated within the CJS. In 2024 an expert consensus was published on the identification and support of individuals with ASD in within the UK CJS. It concluded that greater attention needs to be given to this potentially vulnerable population when navigating the CJS. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Joint Enterprise National Monitoring Scheme 2024/25 data released in September 2025 focused on mental health, to include neurodiverse conditions. It states ‘the quality of data flowing about whether or not a defendant has a disability is poor’ and more likely to ‘be identified during a case’ and while it ‘would be kept under review throughout the life of a case’, any updated information may not be available for the purposes of the monitoring scheme. These are significant holes through which ASD people will fall. Continue reading the full article here:https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/autism-joint-enterprise
Libertas Chambers
Clean Hands, Clean Title: Navigating Good Faith and Ownership in Modern Fraud Litigation I was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in the recent first-instance judgment of Khan v Allana (2025), a case that vividly illustrates how traditional property principles intersect with the realities of modern fraud litigation. The dispute concerned ownership of a valuable Audemars Piguet watch and required the Court to determine whether a purchaser acting in good faith could acquire better title than an original owner alleging loss. Having appeared in the case, I was reminded how often these issues arise at the boundary between civil and criminal law a space in which I regularly practise, navigating both the commercial and criminal arenas where allegations of fraud, deceit, and financial misconduct converge. The analytical tools are similar: proof of ownership in the civil court and proof of criminal provenance in the Crown Court both demand precision about evidence, motive, and credibility. This article explores that shared territory by examining the intersection between nemo dat quod non habet the principle that no one can give what they do not have and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA). The Court of Appeal recently considered the provisions of PoCA in The King (on the application of World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715, and applied the same in determining when tainted property may, or may not, be “cleansed” through acquisition in good faith. Under section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a person cannot transfer better title than they possess. The exceptions, voidable title, estoppel, and sale by a person in possession are all premised on the good faith of an innocent purchaser. In Khan v Allana, that doctrine was decisive: the defendant’s account of loss was contradictory, and no theft was proved. The watch was, at most, subject to voidable title, and the claimant having purchased in good faith and for value took good title. The judge’s findings underline that the burden rests on the party asserting loss to establish factual dispossession. The Court of Appeal in World Uyghur Congress v NCA noted that the definition of “criminal property” in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA) “is not only very broadly expressed, but it is a fluid one which depends on the state of mind of the alleged offender”. The court recognised, the same asset can be clean in one person’s hands and criminal in another’s, depending on their state of mind. Critically, payment of adequate consideration the statutory defence under section 329(2)(c) does not “cleanse” criminal property. The taint only lifts if section 308 applies: where property has been acquired for value, in good faith, and without notice of the underlying criminality. This echoes the nemo dat logic: a bona fide purchaser for value can break the chain of taint. The question of title, in both the criminal and civil jurisdiction are built on the same basic idea that once property becomes tainted, it can only be made “clean” again if it passes to someone who acts honestly, pays proper value, and has no reason to suspect anything is wrong. In civil law, the source of taint lies in a defect of title where someone sells what they do not own whereas in criminal law under POCA, the taint arises because the property represents the proceeds of crime. Each system provides its own route to purification. In the civil sphere, title may pass to a good-faith purchaser for value without notice, unless there is evidence that the original owner did not voluntarily part with the property, since involuntary loss or theft prevents any title from passing at all. In the criminal sphere, section 308 of POCA removes the criminal character of property acquired for value, in good faith, and without knowledge or suspicion of its illicit origin. The burden of proof differs, civilly it rests on the party alleging defective title; criminally it lies on the prosecution to prove knowledge or suspicion but both regimes treat state of mind as decisive. In each, the law distinguishes between the innocent acquirer who deals honestly and the wilfully blind actor who ignores obvious red flags. Title and criminal purity are thus preserved by the same moral and evidential principle: good faith and absence of notice cleanse what would otherwise remain contaminated. The symmetry between nemo dat and the statutory scheme of POCA has practical importance that extends well beyond theoretical comparison. In civil fraud litigation, tracing and restitution hinge on whether title ever validly passed; if the original transferor’s title was void or voidable, the downstream recipient may acquire no better title, and recovery follows. In criminal confiscation, by contrast, the central question is whether the property retains its criminal character if it remains the proceeds of crime, it is liable to recovery regardless of subsequent transfers. Yet the dividing line in both systems is the same: good faith. Each regime penalises wilful blindness. A purchaser who ignores suspicious circumstances risks losing the protection of section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, just as one who acquires property under section 308 of POCA with suspicion or awareness of criminal provenance cannot rely on statutory immunity. The parallel demands of honesty and inquiry mean that both civil and criminal fraud cases ultimately turn on an evaluation of state of mind, inference, and evidential discipline. This convergence explains why modern commercial fraud advocacy requires practitioners to operate fluently across both jurisdictions navigating the interplay between title, suspicion, and the differing burdens of proof that govern the civil and criminal response to tainted assets. For practitioners, the message is clear adequate consideration alone is not enough; due diligence and absence of suspicion remain essential. Nemo dat quod non habet and the idea of criminal property are based on the same simple test of honesty. Both ask whether a person who receives property does so cleanly or carries forward the stain of wrongdoing. In each case, the law looks not just at the price paid but at what the buyer knew or should have known. The closer the buyer is to suspicion, the less protection the law gives. In the judgment, the Judge specifically praised Mr Qureshi’s handling of the case, noting that his cross-examination was “highly skilled.”
Libertas Chambers
Sinéad O’Connor and the Weaponization of Hunger: What if she Sang for Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan? If Sinéad O’Connor were around today, watching the children of Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan starve, her outrage would be incandescent. Thirty-one years ago, she revealed the true nature of the Irish ‘famine’ and its ‘painful feelings’, in her unique and fearless voice. An Gorta Mór was a woeful period marked by invasion and conflict – a purposeful program starvation, politically recast as the sole result of crop failure. There is no doubt Sinéad’s howl of outrage would link the bitter legacy of Britain’s starvation of Ireland to the deliberate deprivation being perpetrated in parts of the MENA region. She would rightly be calling it a crime. Across the MENA region, like Sinéad, musicians have framed the language of resistance. Palestinian group DAM have spoken about their guilt and mourning as activist artists watching the devastation at home. Tunisian singer Emel Mathlouthi, her voice soaring at the Arab Spring, asserted, “I am free and my word is free/ Don’t forget the price of bread … I am the voice of those who do not die,” lyrics that resonate as both witness and indictment. Egyptian band Cairokee, Syrian singer Samih Shqeir, and Lebanese composer Marcel Khalife all fuse grief and protest, arguably turning every refrain into evidence. Through their music, collective memory is sharpened into accusation, particularly on the theme of starvation. But, when and how can such an accusation become a criminal case? According to the World Food Programme (WFP), conflict is the primary reason people are living in acute hunger. The WFP explain that hunger drives people away from their land and livelihoods, disrupts markets, increases food prices and destroys critical developmental gains. Palestine, Yemen and Syria are described as “hunger hotspots” where people are suffering devastating impacts. Research has shown that across all causes and factors, conflict is the dominant feature in famine across time, but it was not until more recently that it became a crime. The Lieber Code (1863) specifically allowed the ‘extreme measure’ of driving the fleeing civilians back into a starving city under siege ‘so as to hasten on the surrender’. The first instance where ‘deliberate starvation of civilians’ was identified as a war crime was after WWI by the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties. Although ultimately never implemented, the list of crimes, including starvation, remains one of the earliest attempts at itemising specific war crimes. Ask about starvation and the siege of Leningrad in WWII is often recalled where there was mass death from hunger, but the siege itself was not unlawful. Starvation remained a military and political tactic, framed as legitimate globally and regionally, well into the twentieth century. Even after the horrors of two world wars, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 did not specifically prohibit starvation. It was the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions that explicitly prohibited starvation as a method of warfare. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I, concerned the protection of victims of international armed conflicts. It prohibits various acts which deny civilians sustenance. Eleven years later, starvation was added to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as a war crime. Six years ago the same laws were amended to apply to non-international armed conflicts – applicable to regions, including MENA. It is often said that in World War II more people died of starvation and disease than in active combat but Daphne Yuqing Liu, an expert on the law on starvation, describes this as too sweeping a declaration. She explains the modern approach as follows: “First, there is a fine difference between the tactical use of starvation and starvation due to an instability. Second, the war crime of starvation as we discuss it today is more than food. ‘Hunger’ for water and medicine also count. The test is whether the item is indispensable to civilian life” This modern test of what is indispensable is important to account for activities in conflict such as destruction/rendering useless by poisoning or polluting water supplies. In MENA, violent attacks on aid workers (and their convoys) and healthcare providers (and their facilities) may be evidence of a starvation tactic. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation which controls food distribution has been described as “an experiment in food control and counterinsurgency for the digital era”. In Syria 5.4 million are at risk of hunger. Famine in Yemen is so ubiquitous it has its own Wikipedia page. In relation to Gaza, UN experts have said : “Securing access to food, water, medicine and critical services is not a matter of charity – it is a legal duty” So it is that international law now reflects Sinéad’s moral values: Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare can, with the necessary evidence, lead to accusation, arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentence, although the laws do not apply to combatants, which can make understanding a situation opaque. It is a law which needs to be tested and therefore should not sit idly on the Rome Statute books but needs to be enforced to see if it functions. If it is used, there may be an impact in terms of deterrence or crime prevention, however aspirational that may sound. We do not have to wait for the much-beleaguered International Criminal Court (which by the way only has three courts), because in many cases, international laws can be enforced in those states which can apply what is known as ‘universal jurisdiction’. This means that many states have the ability to put anyone on trial for international crimes, wherever they are committed. The Global Investigative Journalist Network has reported that in 2025, over 300 million people face acute hunger and that Sudan and South Sudan, Gaza, and Haiti are facing the worst crises. Which of these are conflict related, time and evidence will tell. In addition to the importance of what has become known as ‘activist lawyering’ for moral imperatives , the international legal prohibition on starvation is also a crucial tool for advocacy, evidence-gathering, and the demand for accountability. The recognition of starvation as a war crime (national or regional) transforms it from a military objective to a violation of international norms. It follows that the fundamental right to food is not a ‘cost’ of conflict but a key basis to identify organised criminal military activity.  In this context, law also empowers musicians, activists, and lawyers to frame starvation, as Sinéad did, not as collateral tragedy, but as evidence of a prosecutable crime. If Sinéad O’Connor were here, she may demand that these laws against starvation do more than exist on paper. She may insist they serve the hungry, not through empty promises but through real-world prosecutions and prevention. Anything less, as MENA’s musicians explain, is silence. Dr Felicity Gerry KC is an international barrister, consultant and media commentator with expertise in complex, contemporary legal issues such as human trafficking, homicide, terrorism and war crimes. Check out the article here.
Libertas Chambers
Latest Events
FASD Training for Legal Professionals | SAFETRAC Webinar Libertas Chambers is pleased to bring you specialist training webinar focused on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) and their impact across the criminal justice system. SAFETRAC is a research-informed training programme designed to equip barristers, solicitors and legal professionals with a clear understanding of FASD and the significant implications it can have in practice. Individuals with FASD are disproportionately represented in justice settings, with international estimates as high as 46%, and may face particular challenges in understanding their rights, participating in proceedings, and providing reliable evidence. This session will provide a practical and accessible overview of the causes and characteristics of FASD, and examine how these factors influence offending behaviour, police interviews, fitness to plead, and court participation. Drawing on case examples and lived experience insights, the training will also highlight key indicators that legal professionals can identify, alongside practical strategies to safeguard client rights and ensure a fair process. The webinar is delivered by the Salford FASD research team, Europe’s largest specialist group in this field, offering extensive expertise to support legal professionals in strengthening advocacy, ethical practice, and communication when representing vulnerable clients. Session Details Date: 5 May 2026 Time: 5:30pm – 7:30pm Location: Virtual Register: https://forms.office.com/e/ry4xJuRdef Speakers Dr David Junior Gilbert, Chartered Psychologist and University Fellow in FASD and the justice system Tania Goddard, Solicitor and PhD researcher in FASD and fitness to plead Uzma Naseem, Lawyer and PhD researcher in FASD and harmful sexual behaviours Dr Alan Price, Lecturer in Psychology specialising in FASD and trauma This webinar is free to attend for Law Firms and Legal Professionals in the Libertas network To ensure you don’t miss out on future events please register for our newsletter by clicking here.
Libertas Chambers
Libertas Chambers Supports The Economist Sustainability Week 2026 We’re pleased to share that Libertas Chambers is supporting The Economist’s Sustainability Week next week, and Chambers Member Tanveer Qureshi has been invited to speak on a topic that is moving quickly from “good practice” to live legal risk – 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲: 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸, 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 🗓️ Tuesday 3 March 2026 | 15:00 GMT | 30 minutes 📍 InterContinental London – The O2 This invitation reflects Tanveer Qureshi’s growing presence in ESG and sustainability – related regulatory work, and the increase in instructions in matters where environmental claims, disclosures, and supply-chain assurance are central issues. Ahead of the session, Tanveer comments: “As scrutiny intensifies, environmental claims are no longer a marketing flourish. They are increasingly treated as statements that must be evidenced and, if they are not, the consequences can be regulatory, commercial, and reputational. In my session, I’ll look at what is changing in practice: where enforcement attention is landing, how claims are being tested, and why businesses with complex supply chains are often the most exposed. The focus will be practical: what “good” looks like in 2026 for manufacturers, retailers, and brands – particularly when it comes to substantiation, governance, and the internal controls that sit behind sustainability messaging. I’ll also cover the UK landscape and regulators, including the CMA and ASA, and how their approach feeds into wider board-level risk management.” Visit the event site for more details: https://events.economist.com/sustainability-week/
Libertas Chambers
Urgent Submission to UN on Medical Neglect of Guantanamo Detainee by Felicity Gerry KC Dr Felicity Gerry KC makes an urgent further submission to the Special Rapporteur’s Mandate on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment regarding Mr AMMAR AL-BALUCHI held in Guantanamo Bay Mr al-Baluchi has been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (‘NSGB’), by the United States government since 5 September 2006 after being detained at CIA ‘black sites’ across North Africa, Asia and Europe between 2003 and 2006. He has now been imprisoned for 22 years with no conviction. He was held incommunicado for at least 3 years, was subject to extraordinary rendition and interrogation techniques, and was at one-stage used as a ‘torture prop’ by a rogue interrogator who used him to train other interrogators in his particularly harsh brand of information extraction. In April 2025, the Guantanamo Bay military commission ruled that admissions Mr al-Baluchi made were not admissible because the information was obtained by means of torture.  The fact of Mr Al-Baluchi’s torture is unequivocal. As a direct result of his treatment Mr al-Baluchi suffers from on-going physical and psychological health conditions. These conditions have largely gone untreated. This submission concerns the fact that Mr al-Baluchi has been diagnosed with a spinal tumor and doctors visiting NSGB have determined that he will need surgery to investigate, treat and/or remove it. The kind of specialised medical care that this requires cannot be accessed at NSGB. Dr Corry Jeb Kucik, a former Congressionally-mandated oversight Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at NSGB, and currently, Full Professor of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and consultant to the Military Commissions Defense Organization has provided a report (attached) on this matter that plainly states that Mr al-Baluchi’s surgery should beundertaken in the United States or at another Host Nation with the ‘expertise, equipment, required caseload and support structures in place for all potential surgical misadventures’.  Professor Kucik’s report is unambiguous that NSGB is incapable of safely providing complex care for detainees in a timely manner, as is required by Geneva Convention obligations. Without adequate and immediate medical care Mr al-Baluchi risks a worsening of his condition that is tantamount to torture or ill-treatment. Therefore, it is important that this issue is addressed by the Special Rapporteur urgently, alongside the extant issues of Mr Al-Baluchi’s historic torture, to help ensure that the United States comply with their obligations under international law as to his treatment (and the treatment of other detainees at NSGB in similar circumstances). You can read the further submission here You can read the previous submission here
Libertas Chambers